October 24, 2006

Barack Obama

by hilzoy

LotsofpeoplearetalkingaboutBarack Obama. Is he running for President, or positioning himself to be someone else's running mate? Does he live up to the hype? Is this all just one of those puzzling ephemeral media firestorms? Etc., etc., etc.

I have about as much interest in these questions as I have in polling about the 2008 Presidential race: that is, none whatsoever. I see the problem: he's young and doesn't have that much experience. I see the upsides: he's not Hillary Clinton, he's smart and decent and thoughtful; like a lot of the most successful candidates of recent years, he comes across as an actual human being rather than a stale droning political android, but unlike, say, Ross Perot and Jesse Ventura, he seems also to have the traits that make for good political leaders. (For instance, unlike Perot, he seems to be quite sane. Little things like that matter.)

All that said, though, I can't imagine why we're talking about this stuff when we haven't even had the 2006 elections yet. There are a number of people I could imagine getting behind, and I'll decide which of them to go for when the election is closer, and the question a bit less hypothetical. But I do want to add one little data point while people are talking about him, because it's something I haven't seen people say. And it's this: a lot of people are going on about how Obama has not sponsored legislation on any of the Vital Issues Of The Day. Personally, I think that he'd have to be delusional to introduce, say, his own solution to the health insurance crisis: no bill on such a topic introduced by a freshman senator from the minority party would have a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding, and the only reason to introduce one would be to grandstand. For that reason, I think that his failure to do so tends to speak well of him.

(Besides, consider how many Senators must have been watching for any hint of self-importance when Obama arrived in the Senate, given the press he had coming in; how many of them would have had to have been waiting for any sign that he was thinking: here am I, the wondrous Barack Obama, ready to set the Senate straight! The fact that he seems to have disarmed most of them is, I think, an achievement in its own right; it would have been impossible had he introduced his own comprehensive anti-poverty program, or something.)

But I do follow legislation, at least on some issues, and I have been surprised by how often Senator Obama turns up, sponsoring or co-sponsoring really good legislation on some topic that isn't wildly sexy, but does matter. His bills tend to have the following features: they are good and thoughtful bills that try to solve real problems; they are in general not terribly flashy; and they tend to focus on achieving solutions acceptable to all concerned, not by compromising on principle, but by genuinely trying to craft a solution that everyone can get behind.

His legislation is often proposed with Republican co-sponsorship, which brings me to another point: he is bipartisan in a good way. According to me, bad bipartisanship is the kind practiced by Joe Lieberman. Bad bipartisans are so eager to establish credentials for moderation and reasonableness that they go out of their way to criticize their (supposed) ideological allies and praise their (supposed) opponents. They also compromise on principle, and when their opponents don't reciprocate, they compromise some more, until over time their positions become indistinguishable from those on the other side.

This isn't what Obama does. Obama tries to find people, both Democrats and Republicans, who actually care about a particular issue enough to try to get the policy right, and then he works with them. This does not involve compromising on principle. It does, however, involve preferring getting legislation passed to having a spectacular battle. (This is especially true when one is in the minority party, especially in this Senate: the chances that Obama's bills will actually become law increase dramatically when he has Republican co-sponsors.)

So my little data point is: while Obama has not proposed his Cosmic Plan for World Peace, he has proposed a lot of interesting legislation on important but undercovered topics. I can't remember another freshman Senator who so routinely pops up when I'm doing research on some non-sexy but important topic, and pops up because he has proposed something genuinely good. Since I think that American politics doesn't do nearly enough to reward people who take a patient, craftsmanlike attitude towards legislation, caring as much about fixing the parts that no one will notice until they go wrong as about the flashy parts, I wanted to say this. Specifics below the fold.

Nonproliferation: the poster child for issues that people ought to care about, but don't. Here Obama has teamed up with Richard Lugar (R-IN). How did this happen? Here's the Washington Monthly:

"By most accounts, Obama and Lugar's working relationship began with nukes. On the campaign trail in 2004, Obama spoke passionately about the dangers of loose nukes and the legacy of the Nunn-Lugar nonproliferation program, a framework created by a 1991 law to provide the former Soviet republics assistance in securing and deactivating nuclear weapons. Lugar took note, as “nonproliferation” is about as common a campaign sound-bite for aspiring senators as “exchange-rate policy” or “export-import bank oversight.”"

The way to a wonk's heart: campaign on securing Russian loose nukes. -- In any case, in addition to working on nuclear non-proliferation, Obama and Lugar co-sponsored legislation expanding the Nunn-Lugar framework (which basically allows the US to fund the destruction or securing of nuclear weapons in other countries) to deal with conventional arms. From an op-ed Obama and Lugar wrote on their legislation:

"These vast numbers of unused conventional weapons, particularly shoulder-fired antiaircraft missiles that can hit civilian airliners, pose a major security risk to America and democracies everywhere. That's why we have introduced legislation to seek out and destroy surplus and unguarded stocks of conventional arms in Asia, Europe, Latin America, Africa and the Middle East.

Our bill would launch a major nonproliferation initiative by addressing the growing threat from unsecured conventional weapons and by bolstering a key line of defense against weapons of mass destruction. Modeled after the successful Nunn-Lugar program to dismantle former Soviet nuclear weapons, the Lugar-Obama bill would seek to build cooperative relationships with willing countries.

One part of our initiative would strengthen and energize the U.S. program against unsecured lightweight antiaircraft missiles and other conventional weapons, a program that has for years been woefully underfunded. There may be as many as 750,000 missiles, known formally as man-portable air defense systems, in arsenals worldwide. The State Department estimates that more than 40 civilian aircraft have been hit by such weapons since the 1970s. Three years ago terrorists fired missiles at -- and missed -- a jetliner full of Israeli tourists taking off from Mombasa, Kenya. In 2003 a civilian cargo plane taking off from Baghdad was struck but landed safely.

Loose stocks of small arms and other weapons also help fuel civil wars in Africa and elsewhere and, as we have seen repeatedly, provide ammunition for those who attack peacekeepers and aid workers seeking to stabilize and rebuild war-torn societies. The Lugar-Obama measure would also seek to get rid of artillery shells like those used in the improvised roadside bombs that have proved so deadly to U.S. forces in Iraq.

Some foreign governments have already sought U.S. help in eliminating their stocks of lightweight antiaircraft missiles and millions of tons of excess weapons and ammunition. But low budgets and insufficient leadership have hampered destruction. Our legislation would require the administration to develop a response commensurate with the threat, consolidating scattered programs at the State Department into a single Office of Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction. It also calls for a fivefold increase in spending in this area, to $25 million -- a relatively modest sum that would offer large benefits to U.S. security.

The other part of the legislation would strengthen the ability of America's friends and allies to detect and intercept illegal shipments of weapons of mass destruction or material that could be used in a nuclear, chemical or biological weapon. Stopping weapons of mass destruction in transit is an important complement to our first line of defense, the Nunn-Lugar program, which aims to eliminate weapons of mass destruction at their source."

Dealing with unsecured stocks of shoulder-fired missiles and other kinds of conventional weapons, stocks that might fall into anyone's hands, be sold on the black market, and end up being used against our troops or our citizens, or fueling civil wars that tear countries apart -- it seems to me that this is an excellent thing to spend one's time on.

Avian flu: Obama was one of the first Senators to speak out on avian flu, back in the spring of 2005, when it was a quintessentially wonky issue, not the subject of breathless news reports. There's a list of Democratic efforts on avian flu here; Obama shows up early and often. He has sponsored legislation, including what I think is the first bill dedicated to pandemic flu preparedness. It's a good bill, providing not just for vaccine research and antiviral stockpiles, but for the kinds of state and local planning and preparedness that will be crucial if a pandemic occurs. (I was also very interested to note that it requires the Secretary of HHS to contract with the Institute of Medicine for a study of "the legal, ethical, and social implications of, with respect to pandemic influenza". This is actually very important, and not everyone would have thought of it.)

He has also spoken out consistently on this topic, beginning long before it was hot. Here, for instance, is another op-ed by Obama and Lugar:

"We recommend that this administration work with Congress, public health officials, the pharmaceutical industry, foreign governments and international organizations to create a permanent framework for curtailing the spread of future infectious diseases.

Among the parts of that framework could be these:

Increasing international disease surveillance, response capacity and public education and coordination, especially in Southeast Asia.

Ensuring that, here at home, Health and Human Services and state governments put in place plans that address issues of surveillance, medical care, drug and vaccine distribution, communication, protection of the work force and maintenance of core public functions in case of a pandemic.

This is very good policy, especially the parts about increasing surveillance and response capacity here and abroad. (Effect Measure approves too.)

Regulating Genetic Testing: It was while I was reading about this issue that I first thought: gosh, Barack Obama seems to turn up whenever I am reading about some insanely wonky yet important issue. And this one is not just off the radar; it and the radar are in different universes. Anyways:

You might be surprised to learn that there is very little quality control over genetic testing. I was. If I offer some genetic test, I can basically say what I like about what it will reveal, so long as I avoid violating the laws against fraud. And if you think about how easy it would be to avoid those laws just by talking about, say, a test for some gene that has been found to be slightly associated with increased IQ, you can see how many deceptive (but not legally fraudulent) claims this allows.

Moreover -- and more seriously -- there is very little oversight of the quality of labs that do tests -- that is, whether or not they tend to get the right answers when they do those tests. There is a law (passed in response to evidence that significant numbers of people were getting incorrect results on pap smears) that requires what's called proficiency testing for labs. But though the law requires that the government develop special proficiency tests for labs that do work requiring special kinds of knowledge, and though genetic testing plainly fits that bill, the government has not developed any proficiency tests for genetic testing labs.

This is serious, and bad. Suppose you are mistakenly informed that you are a carrier for some horrible disease: you might decide never to have kids. Suppose you have a fetus tested and you are told that it has, say, Downs' syndrome: you might abort. To do these things as the result of a lab error would be horrible.

Not nearly as horrible as the results of some false negatives, though. Consider this case (from a very good report on the topic):

"A Florida couple both tested negative for the genetic mutation that causes Tay-Sachs, a fatal childhood disease. Two copies of the mutation are required to cause the disease. The couple learned that the test results were incorrect for both parents when their son began exhibiting symptoms of Tay-Sachs shortly after birth. He died eight years later"

Tay-Sachs is an unbelievably horrible disease:

"Infants with Tay-Sachs disease appear to develop normally for the first few months of life. Then, as nerve cells become distended with fatty material, a relentless deterioration of mental and physical abilities occurs. The child becomes blind, deaf, and unable to swallow. Muscles begin to atrophy and paralysis sets in. Other neurological symptoms include dementia, seizures, and an increased startle reflex to noise. (...)

Even with the best of care, children with Tay-Sachs disease usually die by age 4, from recurring infection."

So imagine this: you know that you and your spouse are at risk for carrying this disease. You both get tested; neither is a carrier. You give birth to an apparently healthy child. But after a few months, the child you love stops developing normally, and it turns out that both your test and your spouses were misinterpreted, or screwed up, or whatever, and as a result your child is going to die a horrible death by the age of four. Oops!

In your copious free time, you can think of more cases in which screwing up a genetic test would be disastrous. After you get through with the cases involving children and inherited diseases, consider the effects of misreading a genetic test and informing a man that he is not the father of his child when in fact he is. The possibilities are endless.

You can probably guess who has introduced legislation that addresses this problem. The people who wrote the initial report (note: I know them; they're very good) think it's good. So do I.

Reducing medical malpractice suits the right way: Contrary to popular belief, medical malpractice claims do notdo much to drive up health care costs. Still, medical malpractice litigation is a problem. Tort reform would address this problem at the expense of people who have been the victims of real, serious medical malpractice, who would lose their right to sue, or have it curtailed. If you read the medical literature, however, it turns out that there's a much better way to minimize malpractice suits, namely: apologizing. Strange to say, it turns out that people are a lot less likely to sue when doctors and hospitals admit their mistakes up front, compensate the patients involved fairly, and generally treat people with respect. It certainly would have helped in this case:

"A Sanford mother says she will never be able to hold her newborn because an Orlando hospital performed a life-altering surgery and, she claims, the hospital refuses to explain why they left her as a multiple amputee.

The woman filed a complaint against Orlando Regional Healthcare Systems, she said, because they won't tell her exactly what happened. The hospital maintains the woman wants to know information that would violate other patients' rights."

I'd want to know what happened too, if someone cut off all my arms and legs. And in a case like this, if it was malpractice, limiting the damages a person can collect doesn't seem like the right answer, somehow.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton teamed up to introduce legislation aimed at helping hospitals to develop programs for disclosure of medical errors. (They describe it in this NEJM article.) Again, I think it's good policy: this really is what the evidence suggests is the best way to reduce malpractice claims, and it does it without curtailing the rights of people who have already been injured through no fault of their own. Moreover, when people feel free to discuss their errors, they are much more likely to figure out ways to avoid repeating them. (The legislation provides support for this.) And that's the best way of all to deal with malpractice claims: by addressing the causes of medical malpractice itself.

***

Those are some of the wonkier things he's done. (There are others: introducing legislation to make it illegal for tax preparers to sell personal information, for instance, and legislation on chemical plant security and lead paint.) He has done other things that are more high-profile, including:

A lobbying reform bill (with Tom Coburn), which would do all sorts of good things, notably including one of my perennial favorites, requiring that bills be made available to members of Congress at least 72 hours before they have to vote on them.

And a proposal to revamp ethics oversight, replacing the present ethics Committee with a bipartisan commission of retired judges and members of Congress, and allowing any citizen to report ethics violations. This would have fixed one of the huge problems with the present system, namely: that the members have to police themselves.

But it's the wonky legislation that I love. That and the fact that, for a freshman Senator in the minority party, he has a decent record of getting his proposals enacted.

As I said earlier, I am not interested in getting on anyone's bandwagon at the moment, and I wish he'd spoken up earlier about the torture bill. (Though the speech he gave on the Senate floor was excellent.). But I read one too many pieces about his lack of a track record, and I thought: clearly, the people who are writing these haven't had the same "there he is again!" experience that I have had while researching arcana. So I thought: I should say so.

Comments

Obama burst upon the national scene with the Dem convention in 2004. There is little doubt about his communicating skills.

Since then, he has been a darling of the media because he is young, dynamic, a counterpoint to Hillary and, he is African-American. The last point isn't mentionred too often, but it has a lot to do with his popularity.

Some of his votes have cost him support at places like Kos, mainly because the firebrands over there don't like his willingness to work with the enemy.

No Democrat, at this point, is likely to have muchof a legislative record. To be honest, although he i my senator, I m not sure I would, at this point in time see him as President. Things can change in 2 years, an like you, this is way premature.

I think he finally said he was thinking about running just to avoid the question at every stop he made.

He voted the Lieberman way on the bankruptcy bill and I think a few others, he seems to have something of the Lieberman/McCain I'm-bucking-my-party, I'm-so-independent, service-me-now-centrist-media disease, and his Liebermanesque lecturing of someliberals for being anti-religion is really tiresome. I used to be really excited about his wonkish aspects and affect, but it's back to just Clark for me.

I'm inclined to agree with the moody Rilkefan here, but Hilzoy has assembled a pretty good resume for Obama. The guy has a plan; the deal is we won't know the plan until the Presidential career strategy is fully successful.

One of two things happen in 2006: the Republican Party loses the House (at least) and realizes that Obama rhymes with Osama in 2008 may be a strategy with diminishing returns; or the Republican Party maintains the House and the Senate, and Redstate and Mehlman and Rove convince the frightened, dumb-ass 51% of the American people that swarthiness outside the confines of the Christian Right and the Kudlowian Ayn Randian bad dentistry libertarian clown show (generalizing; I make exceptions and you know who you are) is a cue for bad rhyming poetry.

Hillary, of course, is Stalin. If they run together, they have my vote.

hilzoy: I wish he'd spoken up earlier about the torture bill. (Though the speech he gave on the Senate floor was excellent.)

In its way. Which was to go at it with entirely pragmatic arguments, not moral ones.

Now, I'm fine with any truthful argument that works. But here's the man who has lectured other Democrats for being uncomfortable with talking about how faith informs their votes, and he's talking as if his position on torture has nothing to do with belief in the dignity and worth of the person, God's creation.

That spoke volumes to me.

I'm glad he's working on good things, and I hope he gets a Senate on Nov. 7 that will give him much more scope to work, and to reach across the aisle where possible.

But he needs to win an election against a real opponent before he goes anywhere near a national campaign.

I don't particularly have a brief for Obama; I just like that he does good stuff on obscure issues. That said, I dislike the quote on the censure resolution; I would like to read the speeches on religion in their entirety (since the tiny bits pulled out could be almost anything, given the right context); I have heard the "I don't think George Bush is a bad man" quote, and it was at the beginning of a long and detailed criticism of the Bush administration (the point of this was that for Obama it wasn't about personalities); and I think he's right in the Nagourney piece and about filibusters.

I would take a completely different view of the filibuster quote if I didn't know that he actually votes against cloture on the important issues -- at least, all the ones I know about. If this was an excuse not to support filibusters, it would be pathetic. But given that he does vote for them, it has to be a comment on whether filibusters are the best way to get our message across; and I think that the only thing to be said for the answer 'yes' is the absence of an alternative. I mean: obviously it would be better to have some way of doing things that didn't lend itself to caricaturing Democrats as taking advantage of peculiar features of the Senate rules to obstruct the will of the majority. Wouldn't it?

He means well, he sponsors good legislation, he seems smart, charismatic, and decent. But he's risked, as far as I can tell, nothing since being elected (and not much since winning the Illinois primary for that matter).

I like the man, and your points about his wonkishness are well-taken, especially given the Dems minority status.

That said, if he is going to directly or indirectly criticize me for not being open to people of faith (which is hooey), he damn well better take some strong stands on torture, habeas corpus, and other issues.

He doesn't. So while he is a great politician, he still manages to alienate me. God, faith, bloo blah blee. You can vote the vote, but if you can't muster the gumption to SPEAK OUT, well, what exactly makes you so special?

Not speaking out on the torture bill is a really bad thing in my book. Especially given his previous positions and apparent ability to influence debate. It was a bad decision that seems to point to a calculated self-interest, not an adherence to principle.

That said, I like the guy, but he needs to feel the heat on issues like torture. Don't claim moral authority and then leave it on the shelf.

Here's the thing: people are talking as if Barack Obama is a rising leader of the Democratic Party - or at least a potential one, and indeed a potential president - when he's failed to take the lead or make himself visible on the most important issues of the day.

It's nice that Obama seems to care about some relatively obscure important stuff like nonproliferation. But he's not sticking his neck out on issues that are literally threatening the nature of our democracy. From the war to torture to illegal wiretapping, he has refrained from using his considerable profile to lead opposition to some of the most grotesque horrors this administration has inflicted over the last two years. How is it that a man can seem more interested in getting a glowing cover profile on the cover of Time than in holding the president accountable to violations of law? How am I supposed to take him seriously as a leader - much less a president! - when the guy won't lead?

With respect to Christmas's comment, let me say two things:
1) I'm on Democratic Party donor mailing lists, so I get occasional mail sent out under Obama's name asking me for money. They have included some sharp remarks about detention and related rights issues.

2) Obama is probably one of the greatest experts in the Senate on these subjects, because his day job while he was a State Senator in Illinois was law professor. His class? You guessed it, advanced Constitutional Law.

3) Full disclosure here -- I took that class from Professor Obama (as we knew him then). He was one heckuva teacher, and his enthusiasm for our constitution shone through. It is good strategy for him to lay relatively low on this issue as a very junior Senator, but I can think of nobody in the Senate I would feel safer entrusting our Constitutional rights to.

If Bush can be one certainly Obama can. Be a president that is. I've long thought about how well a doctor or a carpenter or just about anyone with certain kind of ethic and reasonableness could be a fine president. Why not Obama? or hilzoy..or my brilliant and funny aunt Mary.

The idea that Obama voted for the bankruptcy bill has been spread for quite a while. I'm sure rilkefan was well-intentioned but misinformed, but I'm more skeptical about those originally planting the idea. Hell, I've seen people claiming he voted for confirming Gonzales as AG, when Obama was one of the strongest voices against him. So I'm keeping extra grains of salt handy for whenever I hear criticisms of the guy.

"This isn't what Obama does. Obama tries to find people, both Democrats and Republicans, who actually care about a particular issue enough to try to get the policy right, and then he works with them."

And it probably bears stating that this is how a good government would work. There are very few 'party' issues where it wouldn't be better for your cause and for the country to take that approach. You don't need permanent allies on everything.

I realize that the political tide has changed since 9/11, but that shouldn't stop Sen Obama from seeking the Presidency if he so chooses. Sure he doesn't have much experience, but neither did the current President George W Bush and he did OK. I don't think that experience should be a factor anymore in Presidential elections because Bush has already set the precedent for inexperienced candidates. Furthermore, the fact that President Bush could rise to the occasion after 9/11 shows that on the job training is the best training. Sure he's young, but so was Bill Clinton when he was elected and he did OK. Least we forget there was another young/inexperienced President with the initials "JFK" who handeled the Cuban Missle Crisis well even though we were at DEFCON 2 at the only time iour history.

Personally, I'm hoping to see him on the ticket as VP. It might be premature for him to run himself, but I think that he would bring so much to a campaign, that it would be foolishness not to put him on the ticket.

he seems to have something of the Lieberman/McCain I'm-bucking-my-party, I'm-so-independent, service-me-now-centrist-media disease

I tend to agree with rilke fan here. Hilzoy makes a good case that he's a good legislator but his lecuturing schitck really grates on my nerves. He always seems to be running around telling people what they need to do. And finally, from the Stoller post this quote from Obama's Kos post:

According to the storyline that drives many advocacy groups and Democratic activists - a storyline often reflected in comments on this blog - we are up against a sharply partisan, radically conservative, take-no-prisoners Republican party. They have beaten us twice by energizing their base with red meat rhetoric and single-minded devotion and discipline to their agenda. In order to beat them, it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone, give as good as they get, brook no compromise, drive out Democrats who are interested in "appeasing" the right wing, and enforce a more clearly progressive agenda. The country, finally knowing what we stand for and seeing a sharp contrast, will rally to our side and thereby usher in a new progressive era.

I think this perspective misreads the American people.

We, Senator, are the American people.

In the last six years this irks me more than anything, the DC insiderism that declairs that all those good rural Jesus folk are the real americans and we're nothing but a bunch of pesky liberals and Democrats who have lost touch with the American people.

Sure he doesn't have much experience, but neither did the current President George W Bush and he did OK.

If by OK you mean lose two wars of choice, cause the death of over 3000 servicemen and an untold number of Iraqis & Afghans, fail to protect the US on 9/11, lost a major American city and add a few trillions to the national debt, then yes he has done OK.

Sure he doesn't have much experience, but neither did the current President George W Bush and he did OK.

That's vaguely reminiscent of a habeas client a friend of mine was interviewing about his childhood. After recounting some truly ghastly experiences, the client said something about not really believing all that stuff about a bad childhood screwing up your life because he'd had a bad childhood and still turned out OK. The guy was on death row.

Believe it or not, but even though the President screwed up the war, he did OK because the American people said so--twice. The American people had two chances to vote him out and they chose to keep him, for whatever reason, so yes he did OK. I don't see anyone removing him from office or even merely impeaching him, unlike the former President Clinton for something clearly less serious, so yes in my estimation he is doing OK. If you really want change, then PLEASE vote on Nov 7.

Lawrence Tribe is also a constitutional law professor, and I certainly would not want him to be president. The GOP has a star in its midst, and his name is Mitt Romney. Time magazine has a habit of promoting "rock stars" on its cover, as was the case with Bruce Springsteen. The New York Times and Washington Post, like Pravda of old, don't want you to know that Romney exists. But the people of liberal Massachusetts apparently knew better. The GOP ignores him at its own peril.

Let me ask you:
exactly what are "stale droning political androids" if not human beings?

You confuse one particular type of behavior (i.e. style) with being human.
There is nothing in Obama which makes him more human than say Al Gore but sure he is a far less original mind and more sentimental and cheesy which apparently sell well among the ever childish American population.

I don't know what the hell is so attractive in a hamburger but sure Obama is one: an entity created for mass consumption. Boring.

Obama strikes me as a man who sticks up for the underdog. I believe that this theme should resonate throughout every aspect of his campaign, including his choice for a campaign theme song, which should involve a song from an underdog songwriter like myself. May the presidential candidate with the greatest news for the underdog in America, use a song like this one, from an underdog songwriter like me, for his/her presidential campaign:

OBAMA IS FOOLING EVERYONE. DO NOT TRUST HIM AND ALL THOSE LIES HE'S TELLING. THINK ABOUT IT...WHEN DID A PRESIDENT MAKE HIS WORD GOOD? TO MANY PEOPLE TO GO THROUGH AND NOTHING CHANGES! TIME ME WHEN? WHY SHOULD I BELIEVE HIM WHY?

I know that I am not alone in saying this. I do not claim to be with either party. What I am for is the United States. While in the service I travel all over the world in fact even after as a federal employee. In nearly every one of these countries I visited or assigned to as some time their people voted for "change" claimed to be only available by selecting a charming talker. They had change all right and none of it for the good. One might guess that most of his votes comes from certain sectors based on his race rather than his qualifications (which are very few) Yes he wrote a book, so did Stephen King and many others big deal. Is this bias speaking, NO!! however, I would rather see my vote cast for a proven candidate than a untried johnny come lately. Someone with the name of say, Powell, would have my vote in an instant. As it stands now, I would rather vote Republican than help to let the United States trashed by someone who knows how to speak and little else. But you ostriches can go with change, chances are you will not like the changes you get. It has happened all to many times before. If the voter in Iowa, who was going to cast his vote for Obama because he liked the shape of his head, is any indication of what these voters are looking for as far as qualifications, we have certainly dropped to a sorry state.

I am well aware of the fact that people are scared of Hillary Clinton, but they can't articulate their reasons for it anymore than they can articulate the reasons they want Obama.
They are afraid that she will actually work to PROTECT women.
She represents the majority of Americans..women. Her policies are well thought out and ariculated well and posted for every American to read.
If Obama is elected it will be the sadest day in American history. He may have some vision but he has no plan, no record, no experience and supports the Republican party which makes him a fake and a traitor.
I don't care what Obama did or did not accomplish in his short time in the Senate. He doesn't represent the majority of Americans. He's just a smooth operator and that is the last thing we need

My reason for visiting this site was to learn more about Barrack Obama. The first half was crammed with interesting information and well thought out arguments and counter arguments. Isn't it a shame when a discussion like this has to degrade from intelligent discourse to simple negative generalization. Still, I learned a lot (earlier on). Thanks!

My reason for visiting this site was to learn more about Barrack Obama. The first half was crammed with interesting information and well thought out arguments and counter arguments. Isn't it a shame when a discussion like this has to degrade from intelligent discourse to simple negative generalization. Still, I learned a lot (earlier on). Thanks!

Thanks so much for this article--it does something the media does not: tell the truth and investigate Obama's legislative record! I just wish the media would move off this dual narrative of experience and change (also pushed by the candidates) and actually go to work unearthing what both candidates have accomplished. If you know of a site that details all the legislation that Hillary has passed while she's been a Senator, please let me know. Thanks again.

PLEASE make this more press-friendly by adding a bulleted list summary of his major accomplishments at the TOP of the article. Journalists are busy and often too lazy to read, make it easier for them to get the nut and move on.

First I just gotta say - this is one of the most thoughtful and civil blogs and groups I've seen recently. Credit to hilzoy and all of you.

I have to consume this info and think about it, but will definitely be writing about it myself on my blog (consider yourselves attributed if I miss a cross-link somewhere - hate to have CNN calling me a plagiarist... ;~)

I think that someday Obama will be a great president,but not now.This country is in the worst shape it's been in in a long time and I don't think a 2 year junior senator,no matter how brilliant and accomplished he is,should even have the notion that he is ready for the presidency.For this,I see the arrogance that carries Obama through.He's going to end up giving us another Republican presidency for the next 4 to 8 years because America is not going to vote for a man of color;GREEN!

I think that someday Obama will be a great president,but not now.This country is in the worst shape it's been in in a long time and I don't think a 2 year junior senator,no matter how brilliant and accomplished he is,should even have the notion that he is ready for the presidency.For this,I see the arrogance that carries Obama through.He's going to end up giving us another Republican presidency for the next 4 to 8 years because America is not going to vote for a man of color;GREEN!

A black man runs from a howling crowd. If he’s caught he’ll be torn apart. If he reaches sanctuary he’ll be loved. This ritual is the Sacred Lynching. It’s a scene from Olaf Stapledon’s science fiction book, The First and Last Men. Set in the future, humanity has mixed and few people are “white” or “black,” and the ritual is a nostalgic celebration of racism in a post-racial world. It resembles our own supposed post-racial politics, and I see Senator Barack Obama as that last black man on earth trying to outrun our media mob.

And the mob tries. At ABC’s Democratic primary debate in Philadelphia, hosts Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos tied trivia around Obama’s feet. What about your angry black pastor? Are you patriotic? Are you a friend of a Weathermen terrorist? Obama questioned their questions until they looked absurd. The audience caught his cue and afterwards, when the cameras blinked off, they heckled the hosts.

The media chase Obama because, if he wins the presidential race, he’ll break the last American color line, which is also the line between our repressed history and our collective consciousness. A nation, just like an individual, will repress images and ideas that conflict with its self-image. The violence that created who we are — enslavement of Africans, indigenous peoples marched off their land, workers hanged for unionizing — contradicts our self-image as the greatest nation on earth, so our media-represses it.

Give me a break dude, none of that is significant legislation. Ok, some legislation was introduced. Did you actually spend any time to look up the real world results of the laws before declaring how great they were? I mean, did you even check to see if these pieces of legislation actually became laws? Typical Democrat: we must be seen to be doing something, even if it is ineffective and a waste of money. Who cares about the results as long as we are creating more government!

Face it, Obama has no experience doing much of anything useful to society--oh wait I forgot, he was a "community organizer"! He has been living off the public teat his whole adult life. Near the end of his time in the Illinois Senate, the Dem heavies padded his record by attaching his name to any and every bill, leaving many of his less eloquent seniors a little disgruntled. Go look it up.

Let's review: He is a neophyte foreign policy blunderbuss, with no military service, no experience in industry, no understanding of the creation of wealth and the means of production, and no executive experience.

You feel the need to chuff up his resume because you realize how lacking it is. This guy is no JFK, lefties.

Oh, and your dig at Lieberman is the definition of solipsism:

"According to me, bad bipartisanship is the kind practiced by Joe Lieberman."

The kinds of birds Obama flocks with……..
The company he keeps….
Saul Alinsky- This mans ideology and belief systems were used as
Platform form for Barack’s training as a community
Organizer. According to Alinskys code words,
Change = social revolution, Alinsky’s beliefs are
Rooted in re-distribution of wealth, he belived
Community organizers where very important to
Run beside the community, speak their language
That they could be manipulated into a false sense
Of security through the words of the community
Organizers. A community organizers job is continue
To play for power within the community to be in
A place to manipulate others ie, the little people
Of the community. They were trained to speak the
Language clearly to the community around them and
Then manipulate the community in the direction that
The organizer believes is best. Alinsky used Lucifer as
Model of rebellion because he was the first successful
Deceiver.
Rules for Radicals opens with a quote about Lucifer, written by Saul Alinsky: “Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins -- or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom -- Lucifer.

30 Bombs Ayers-hosted Barack’s political career launch in 1995
in his home with psycho convict wife (Dohrn)
served on Woods Fund board with Barack
(Obviously he knows him more than when he
was eight years old) Ayers stood on top of the
American flag for a photo shoot, just days before
9/11. (Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn)

Khalidi-Well known critic of Israel, advocate of Palestinian Rights
Felt O’Bama had convinced him about U.S. Bias and insensitivity
To Arabs. Los Angeles Times described Obama as his dinner
Companion and friend.

O’dinga-Educated in communist former East Germany, Odinga named his first-born son Fidel Castro. Representing Nairobi's Kibera slum, one of Africa's largest, Odinga projects himself as a champion of the poor. But he has a large business empire and is a member of Kenya's wealthy elite.

In a January 2008 interview, Odinga suggested that he was the first cousin of American Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama through Senator Obama's father.[27] However, Barack Obama's paternal uncle Said Obama has denied any direct relation to Odinga, stating "Odinga's mother came from this area, so it is normal for us to talk about cousins. But he is not a blood relative."[28] Obama's father belonged to the same Luo tribe as Odinga. [27]

Here is another take on O’Dinga and his connection to Barack….

The people that are burning christians alive, trapped inside churches are Odinga supporters...Odinga (and most of his fanatical followers) are a Muslims who have pushed for Sharia Law, total banning of other religions and closing of co-ed schools, night clubs and 'public dressing style considered immoral'.

Here is a 2006 report on that trip to Kenya:

Obama's Criticism Irks Kenyan Government Government Says Obama Is A Stooge For Political Opposition

by Mike Flannery

(CBS) There are signs of tension between Sen. Barack Obama and African leaders. On Monday, Obama stepped up his criticism of government corruption in Kenya.

But as CBS 2 Political Editor Mike Flannery reports, the government fired back, saying Obama is a stooge for an opposing political party.

A surprise raid that seized and burned copies of Kenya's oldest newspaper, The Standard, still prompts journalists there to call last March 2 the darkest day in the more than 100 years they've been publishing.

"For us as an institution, I think it was the lowest point in the history of this newspaper," News Editor Douglas Okwatch said.

It was because of that raid that Sen. Barack Obama went to the Standard's offices. He declared that democracy can't work without freedom of the press and freedom of information.

"It is not just a loss for the Standard. It's a loss for the people of Kenya. So my hope is that this is one episode that won't be repeated," Obama said.

At the University of Nairobi two hours later, the senator offered more pointed criticism, something he's done almost every day since arriving last week. After remaining largely silent, the government of President Mwai Kibaki is beginning to respond, suggesting that Obama may have fallen under the spell of opposition leader Raila Odinga.

A potential presidential candidate himself, Odinga's been at Obama's elbow here fairly often and is a member of the Obama family's Luo tribe.

Hmmmmm…the truth?

Graham-Felsen- recruited Marxist journalist the official blogger for Barack
Who apparently hung a commie flag in his home?

This time we find that the Obama campaign’s official blogger, Sam Graham-Felsen, has spent time in France participating in labor riots, has written for a socialist magazine, hung a communist flag in his home, and was a fan of Marx while at Harvard.

Rezko- known as O’Bama’s political “Godfather” bankrolled O’Bama in 5 elections (50-60thousand
Dollars)
Helped Barack get his Dream Home
Barack was involved at the legal firm the represented Rezko
O’bama’s boss at the firm left to work with Rezko
11 buildings in O’Bama’s district were Rezko’s dirty slum buildings
Rezko’s wife bought lot of land right next to The O’Bamas

More here……….

Rezko got “over $100 million in city, state, and federal grants and bank loans to develop 30 run-down properties into affordable-housing projects, earning $6.9 million for themselves. By 2007, the city had sued them numerous times for failing to heat these properties; over half of the properties had fallen into foreclosure, and six of them were boarded up.
Obama helped put one of these deals together during his time as a junior associate at Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland. Other lawyers at Davis Miner helped Rezko acquire half of the properties that fell into disrepair. And many of these properties were located in the district Obama represented as an Illinois state senator. Nonetheless, Obama told the Chicago Sun-Times that he was unaware of Rezko’s growing reputation as a slumlord until he read Sun-Times reporter Tim Novak’s two-part series on the subject. So we are to believe (yet again) that Obama was the last person to know what one of his longtime friends was up to.
Even if Obama can claim plausible deniability about the deteriorating shape of Rezko’s slums, he faces a more difficult challenge in explaining why he entered into a real-estate deal with Rezko after the Chicago papers had run over 100 stories about the clouds gathering over Rezko’s head. When the Obamas were looking for a new house in the summer of 2005, Rezko helped them buy their dream home by purchasing an adjoining lot they could not afford, then selling them a strip of the land on which they wanted to build a fence.
Obama admitted to the Sun-Times that when he bought the strip of land, he knew Rezko “was going to have some significant legal problems,” and characterized his decision to buy the property anyway as a “boneheaded move.” Obama said he proceeded with the transaction because Rezko had always acted “in an above-board manner with me and I considered him a friend.”
By Stephen Spruiell
Talk about bad timing. Barack Obama’s friend and fundraiser Antoin “Tony” Rezko was found guilty today of mail fraud, wire fraud, soliciting bribes, and money laundering in connection to a federal investigation into political corruption in the state of Illinois. Rezko now faces sentencing on 16 of 24 counts, some of which carry punishments of up to 20 years in prison.http://brianakira.wordpress.com/2008/06/05/friends-neighbors-obama/

Barack and Michelle’s income
They reported an income of more than $991,296 in 2006, and $1,700,000 in 2005.
Jeremiah Wright- Need I say more………